WASHINGTON D.C. — Independent Women’s Law Center, together with the Manhattan Institute, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, urging the Court to hear a case involving the constitutional rights of parents and accountability for government medical professionals.
The case arises from a gender-related medical procedure performed on Ted Hudacko’s minor son despite a court order expressly requiring Hudacko’s written consent for any “gender identity related surgery.” That consent was never obtained before doctors surgically implanted a puberty-blocking Supprelin device.
Independent Women’s Law Center’s brief provides the Court with important new context from the recently released U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of “Gender Medicine.” Five representatives of Independent Women contributed to the report, which examines the rapid expansion of pediatric gender medicine and the professional, institutional, and financial practices surrounding cross-sexl interventions on minors.
“A parent’s legal right to say ‘no’ means nothing if government medical professionals can simply proceed without asking,” said Beth Parlato, senior legal counsel for Independent Women’s Law Center. “Ted Hudacko had a court order expressly protecting his right to consent before his minor son underwent gender-related surgery. That procedure went forward without his consent. This case is ultimately about protecting a parent’s right to make consequential medical decisions for his or her child. We urge the Supreme Court to hear this important case and reaffirm that those rights cannot be ignored.”
Independent Women’s Law Center’s brief also highlights the experiences of detransitioners and demonstrates why parental authority matters so deeply when children face life-altering medical decisions. Parents bring judgment, experience, and knowledge of their children that minors cannot be expected to possess.
“When a court has expressly protected a parent’s authority to make those decisions, government officials cannot simply render that right meaningless,” Parlato added. “The stories of young people who have lived with the consequences of these irreversible interventions underscore exactly why parental involvement matters. Children cannot be expected to fully appreciate the lifelong consequences of decisions made at such a young age. Parents must be able to ask questions, exercise judgment, and, when necessary, say no.”
Independent Women’s Law Center urged the Supreme Court to grant Hudacko’s petition for a writ of certiorari and review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
Read the brief here.
###
Independent Women’s Law Center provides unique legal perspectives around key issues and supports wronged individuals to bring justice and to drive game-changing policies.
Independent Women’s trusted experts, analysis, and data enable us to drive informed conversations to build support for better policy solutions.
Independent Women®’s unique, persuasive methods and trusted brand shape public preferences, policies, and movements to create a better future for everyone.